West Bromwich (County Borough of) Transport Dept 1952 Daimler CVG5 Metro-Cammell B38R
To return to West Bromwich, near contemporaries of the GEA registered Daimler double deckers, a pair of which were posted on site a week or so ago, were a batch of single deckers. The chassis were built in 1948, but due to pressure of work at Metro-Cammell the bodies were not ready until 1952. By then, of course, under floor engined saloons were almost ubiquitous, so they seemed old even when new. One of them, FEA 156, has been preserved and is seen here in 2012, in West Brom’s superb livery.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
17/06/13 – 06:55
Thanks for posting, Tony. I agree with your comment about their ‘old’ appearance, even from new. If the entry at the rear had been fitted with a door, or if the door had been just behind the front wheels (as with Birmingham’s Tigers, for example) it might have helped.
Pete Davies
17/06/13 – 06:56
Looks a bit old, even for 1948…. it is not helped by the slopey windscreen and rear entrance. I have never seen a Daimler radiator finished in what looks like silver paint.. is this authentic? It makes the radiator seem to project even more in front of the bodywork, which cannot be the engine length as it is a G5: contemporary Daimlers weren’t always so, I suggest. Nice looking preservation, though.
Joe
17/06/13 – 15:04
Interesting bonnet opening arrangement as well, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. Was this normal Daimler practice at the time?
Eric Bawden
17/06/13 – 17:30
Wonderful livery! One of the all time classics. It seems strange that it took four years to build bodies for this small batch of vehicles despite the post-war high demand for new vehicles.
Philip Halstead
18/06/13 – 07:17
I was also thinking that the four year delay was excessive and must have had some other factor. One other thing I’m not sure of is the length of this bus. I am inclined to think that it’s a thirty-foot long vehicle as 38 is a lot of seats to fit into one twenty-seven and a half feet long when you take into account the platform style which didn’t sit well with maximising seating capacity. The thing is, I’m sure the increased length didn’t become legal until at least 1949, so why build an illegal chassis in 1948? Having looked around the web a bit and been rather distracted by some shots of this bus’s superbly-restored double-deck sister 174 I find references to the chassis being built in 1950. Everything then makes sense. So what is the correct year for the chassis – I have no primary sources to refer to?
David Beilby
18/06/13 – 07:19
Edinburgh bought several batches of saloons with this kind of MCW body including Guys and some similar Daimlers. The body was basically a pre war design.
Chris Hough
18/06/13 – 18:15
Yes, FEA 156 is 30′ long. The chassis was lengthened when the body was fitted, as this was legal by then.
Tony Martin
26/09/13 – 06:33
With regards to the radiator finish, the bus was restored as original as can be, as part of the 156 group we have photos in colour that show 156 had a painted radiator compared to the more ‘standard’ finish that was used with Daimler, I believe they were painted depending on the engine, but when I have found out the correct reason why I will let you all know.
Dan
28/09/13 – 17:46
It’s lovely to see one of these W. Bromwich buses looking impeccable. In my RAF service days in the late 1950’s we’d go into Brum from time to time and see a W. Bromwich bus whizzing across a junction or lurking in a side road. I honestly never saw one other than faded and tatty. It didn’t help that B’ham Corp’n vehicles were always impeccable, greatly helped by a policy of no adverts.
Chris Hebbron
11/11/13 – 09:49
Seen here together are 156 and the recently restored 174 at an event at AMRTM, Aldridge.
Tony Martin
11/11/13 – 15:18
They make a fine pair, tony. Thx for posting.
Chris Hebbron
23/02/14 – 15:17
Re: FEA 156. What a stunning body style this was. I probably saw all these when I worked in West Brom and I always considered them to be unique especially with the rear cut-away entrance and no door. The driver also appeared to sit up very high. Re: GEA 174. Yet another stunning body style. The flared skirt just makes for a truly handsome vehicle. I rode these as often as I could on the 74 & 75 routes in preference to the Birmingham buses. They had the front row of seats in the lower deck turned at right angles to face each other. Pity the Beclawat top hinged window vents to the front upper deck are missing. Most likely unable to find any replacements.
Burwell and District Motor Services 1952 Daimler CVG6 Northern Counties H33/28R
Burwell and District was a small company based in the Cambridgeshire village of that name, just to the north west of Newmarket. Like many such operators, it began just after WW1 when Mr Mansfield, a cycle and motor agent in the village, bought a 20 seat Model T Ford and ran a bus service to Cambridge. Other routes were developed, and, by the time of the 1930 Road Traffic Act, the firm had services to Bury St Edmunds and Ely in addition to the major route to Cambridge. Further stage carriage operations were added, and excursions and tours became an important element of the business, so much so that, from 1933, apart from a solitary Dennis Ace bus bought in 1938, all the vehicles purchased were coaches. The heavy passenger loads during the Second World War brought about the reversion to bus configured vehicles, and in 1941 the first double decker appeared. Several more followed as the war progressed, including three CWA6 utilities. In the post war period, clearly impressed with the Coventry product, the firm standardised on Daimler chassis for many years, though latterly AECs, particularly Reliances, became increasingly favoured. Secondhand purchases predominated from the late 1960s onwards until 1979, when the owners sought to retire. Attempts were made, in vain, to sell to another independent operator but 6th June 1979 saw the last journey run by the brown and cream buses. The following day Eastern Counties Bristols took over, and the entire Burwell fleet was put up for disposal. A full history and fleet list for Burwell and District may be found here: www.petergould.co.uk/burwell1.htm PHP 220 was a Daimler CVG6 demonstrator of 1952 with a Northern Counties H33/28R body bought by Burwell and District in 1956 and withdrawn in 1972. It is seen here on 26th August 1959 in Drummer Street bus station, Cambridge (nowadays altered beyond recognition from its early layout) leaving on its way to Soham. It is passing one of the numerous Eastern Counties lowbridge K5Gs. Eastern Counties had very few low bridges in its territory, but allocated lowbridge double deckers to most of the country routes, keeping the highbridge fleet employed mainly on the Norwich and Cambridge town services. The contrast in refinement between the preselective, flexibly mounted, six cylinder highbridge Daimler and the rigidly mounted, five cylinder, constant mesh, lowbridge Bristol could surely not have been greater.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
01/09/13 – 14:42
I well remember being very impressed by this lovely vehicle when, as a demonstrator, it was on loan to Leeds City Transport. I recall seeing it near the Town Hall on service 42 to Lower Wortley – can anyone recall if it was in some kind of deep purple, very dignified, or is the grey matter here really failing now ??
Chris Youhill
02/09/13 – 06:00
I was on that very last journey on June 6th 1979 and still have the ticket to prove it. It was operated by four Fleetlines and there was a certain amount of jockeying for position by the drivers in order to claim the title of the last Burwell bus to leave Drummer Street Bus Station. Our bus (9 DER) driven by Jim Neale, a relation of the Mansfield family, gained that honour although it wasn’t the last to arrive back at the depot. I recall that villagers stood at their garden gates and waved goodbye as the final service passed by.
Nigel Turner
02/09/13 – 08:00
Chris, Peter Gould gives the production date of PHP 220 as 1952, but Paul Carter, a highly respected expert on East Anglian operators, says it dates from 1954. When was it on loan to Leeds? Can anyone verify the issue date of the registration? I plumped for 1952 in the above text as the 1954 date seemed rather late for a demonstrator of such a very well established vehicle type.
Roger Cox
02/09/13 – 08:00
Volume 4 of Leeds Transport says that it was on loan from 24 August to 14 September 1954 and the livery was “maroon and cream without lining”.
Trevor Leach
02/09/13 – 16:15
Many thanks for that reassurance Trevor – at least my memory of the colour, while not 100% accurate, wasn’t too far wide of the mark. Mind you,in September 1954 I had other things on my mind, having just received from Her Majesty such a kind invitation to join her troops in blue on October 20th for a two year “event”.
Chris Youhill
02/09/13 – 16:15
Regarding the issue date of the registration of PHP by Coventry. I have two books which give details of various histories, issue dates, etc, of UK registrations. Both agree that Coventry started to issue PHP in July 1954. The next mark (PRW) followed in September 1954. So this would narrow down PHP220 to the summer of 1954. If the chassis dated from 1952 as suggested above, perhaps it was used by Daimler for it’s own internal purposes (or on trade plates?) before it’s use as a demonstrator. That’s just my speculation – I have no documentary evidence on Daimler’s use of the chassis, or when the body was built.
Michael Hampton
02/09/13 – 16:15
Bus Lists on the Web gives the date new as being 1954. I last saw the bus in a yard in Northwich in 1972 But according to the recent PSV Circle publication regarding Daimler Chassis Numbers 16685 etc, the bus was built in 1952 as the 4th prototype CL lightweight chassis. Bodied in 1952 and first registered as a demonstrator in 1954. Sold to Burwell and District in March 1956. Re-designated as a CV by Daimler. I also think that the shot above was photographed at Middlewich not Northwich.
Stephen Bloomfield
03/09/13 – 06:00
‘A History of Motor Vehicle Registrations in the United Kingdom’ by L.H. Newall shows that the County Borough Council of Coventry issued PHP marks from 7/54 until 9/54.
Stephen Howarth
03/09/13 – 06:00
‘Bus Lists On The Web’ gives a date new of 1954 on the Northern Counties body list, and the chassis number seems to point to much the same date. Coventry’s 1951/2 batch of CVD6s had KVC registrations, and their next delivery, CVG6s delivered in 1955/6, were RWK. So all the evidence appears to indicate that when this vehicle was on loan to Leeds, it was very, very, new.
David Call
03/09/13 – 16:30
Stephen’s account of the history of this vehicle is endorsed by Alan Townsin’s book on Daimler published by Ian Allen. If I had looked in my copy first I would have found the answer. He says that chassis 18337 was one of the CL prototype lightweight chassis of 1952, which suggests that it began life with a Gardner 5LW engine and the power hydraulic braking system of the CD650. It eventually emerged for psv use as PHP 220 with a lightweight Northern Counties body in 1954, by which time it had become a CVG6 with conventional vacuum brakes.
Roger Cox
03/09/13 – 16:30
I understood that the reason for lowbridge buses in the Eastern Counties fleet was the restricted headroom in their Ipswich depot and bus station.
Geoff Kerr
19/10/13 – 17:19
PHP 220 was acquired by B&D on 5th April 1956 and sold on 7th January 1972. While with B&D air brakes and gear change were fitted.
Jim Neale
16/03/16 – 15:34
Jim, the air-operated preselector was quite new to Daimler in 1954, having been announced that year as an option on the Freeline; according to a leaflet somebody sent me a scan of.
Stephen Allcroft
17/03/16 – 10:48
Stephen, the newest B&D Freeline with vacuum brakes was NVE 1, built in 1954. only the last 2, built in 1958/58 had air brakes and gearchange. An amusing anecdote regarding the air-change on PHP was of a part-time driver, not familiar with the system parking on the bay in Drummer St. bus station leaving it in reverse gear. (i.e not engaging neutral by depressing the pedal after selecting). After tea-break and a slight air-leak when the engine was started the bus was stuck in reverse gear which required half of the bus station to be cleared while the embarrassed driver reversed round far enough to build up enough air-pressure to disengage reverse and then engage a forward gear to proceed. The same P/T driver was also embarrassed a few years later when driving a Fleetline for the first time. He parked in Drummer St., opened the door with the gear selector and stopped the engine. When it was time to depart he pressed the starter button and nothing happened as the gear selector was still in the door position. After a few moments fiddling and no sign of life the Conductress was about to go to the phone box to call for assistance. I was a 16 year old passenger sitting on the back seat and knew what to do so made my way to the front of the bus, flicked the gear selector in to neutral and pressed the starter button and we were away. I don’t think the driver liked being shown up by a teenager like that but I went on to drive many more miles in that bus than he ever did!
Jim Neale
17/03/16 – 15:19
I’ve one question from your original post info, Roger. Did the family sell the company to Eastern Counties in the end, or at least the goodwill, since EC didn’t buy their vehicles?
Chris Hebbron
17/03/16 – 15:20
Jim. Vacuum braked Freelines? I have only previously heard of hydraulic or air.
Stephen Allcroft
18/03/16 – 05:38
Stephen, To be honest I am not sure about the difference between vacuum and hydraulic brakes. I know the earlier Freelines did have a peculiar system which also involved the gear-change pedal but my experience driving them was very limited and I was only 21 at the time as most buses and coaches that I have driven have had air brakes.
Jim Neale
18/03/16 – 05:39
Yes, Chris, according to Paul Carter in his writings on Cambridge area operators, Burwell sold out to ECOC after all other approaches to independents proved fruitless. Paul’s book, “Cambridge 2”, includes some reminiscences by Jim Neale about his time with Burwell & District and afterwards – well worth a read. Turning to the Freeline braking question, I, too, can find no reference at all to a vacuum braked option. The power hydraulic braking system with which Daimler became rather besotted was the standard fitment to the Freeline, but Daimler very quietly introduced an air braked option in 1952. I cannot discover just how many Freelines had air brakes, but surely the eight that went to Great Yarmouth must have been so fitted. Geoff Hilditch is unremitting in his loathing of the brakes of the Halifax CD650 ‘deckers. He would assuredly not have ordered Freelines with the hated hydraulic system. Incidentally, the Freeline had a high driving position because the spare wheel was located beneath the floor at the front of the chassis. On the subject of the power hydraulic braking, steering, gearchange system, one wonders why Daimler became so wedded to this arrangement. The AEC Regent III had shown the way forward with air operated brakes and gearchange, and power assisted steering was always a possible extra fitment to any chassis if required. Daimler had previously adopted air brakes entirely successfully in its trolleybus chassis from 1936 onwards, so the firm was fully familiar with the system. Power Hydraulic braking was never popular with the operating industry, and apart from the special cases of London Transport’s RMs and Midland Red’s D9s, bus operating engineers elsewhere generally kept well clear. Those chassis that did have the full hydraulic system didn’t sell very well, witness the Dennis Lancet UF, Foden PVD/PVSC and the Tilling-Stevens Express MkII. No doubt other correspondents can think of some more examples.
Roger Cox
19/03/16 – 06:42
G. G. Hillditch did indeed specify air-operated brakes and gears (Daimatic) on FEX 524-5 and AEX 18-20B: he also had fitted Gardner rather than Daimler engines. He detailed the specification process in “Looking At Buses”.
With reference to Stephen Allcroft query re: Freeline vacuum brakes. I think what Jim meant was “Servo (vacuum) assisted hydraulic system” Lockheed called this “continuous flow system” It was also use3d on a lot of early Routemasters.
During the Selnec era, quite a number of ex-Salford buses were transferred to the former Manchester Corporation Depot at Queens Road. Most of these were Leyland Atlanteans and PD2’s, which would be quite at home among the ex-Manchester Leylands based here, although I wondered what the Queens Road crews made of the forward entrances on the PD2’s. 4017 (ex-Salford 128) was one of a handful of CVG6’s which moved from Salford to Queens Road. The latter depot had been home to Manchester’s only manual gearbox Daimlers, 4650 – 4, and occasionally elderly CVG6’s had spent their last days at Queens Road Depot on peak hour workings. However Queens Road was a firmly Leyland Depot, and I sometimes wonder how many drivers here were trained to use the preselector gearbox. The bus is seen at Mills Hill Bridge, which had traditionally been the boundary between the operating areas of Manchester and Oldham Corporations. It was the half way point on service 59 (Manchester – Middleton – Oldham – Shaw) which was normally operated by 6 buses from each fleet. However on Sunday Mornings in pre Selnec times, the service was operated in two halves with passengers changing buses at Mills Hill Bridge. Both operators ran short workings to this point, Oldham as service 3 and Manchester as 59X. Note the very small print on the standard Selnec destination blind. Obviously its a matter of opinion, but I thought the “Orion” body suited the Selnec livery quite well.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown
16/01/14 – 06:23
The manual CCG6 Daimlers made sweet music after the fashion of Guy Arabs – whose gearbox they shared – but were universally loathed by both Salford and Manchester drivers. [Apparently the Daimler installation worked less well than Guy’s own.] You’re not the only one, Don, who thinks an Orion can look good with the correct livery.
David Oldfield
16/01/14 – 06:24
What an interesting view! Thanks for posting, Don. Unlike most of the new PTE operations, which simply extended the livery of the biggest constituent with little or no variation, SELNEC went for a completely new livery. Some liked it, some were appalled, but they couldn’t ignore it. More orange below the lower deck windows may have helped to placate some observers – but it might have annoyed some of them even more!
Pete Davies
16/01/14 – 06:25
Would the (ex-)Salford CVGs have had air or spring-operated pre-selector gears? And why the split in the Sunday am service? a perception for the need for differing frequencies from each municipality perhaps?? . . . but with practices like that – and Oldham giving their half of the Sunday morning shorts a different number altogether – is it any wonder passengers went elsewhere? Now, I’ve never driven a pre-selector: does it require “training” or can it be picked up “on the job”? are there aspects of driving manual/clash/crash/synchro/whatever that need to be put aside when driving a pre-selector? I must admit that I’ve felt wary of going near a pre-selector ever since I read about that nasty “kick-back” habit of spring-change pre-selectors . . . then again, I’ve enough trouble with throttle/clutch/shift without the added complication of shift/throttle/change (am I right there?).
Philip Rushworth
16/01/14 – 08:42
As an “amateur” with about twenty years experience of using my PSV (PCV) for various things – in fact most types of operation – I would say that type training is an essential but often overlooked element of the job. In an ideal world, that includes the difference between Synchro Manual, Crash Manual, Semi Automatic and Pre Select gear change.
David Oldfield
16/01/14 – 09:02
The Orion bodied vehicles probably came out best of all with the SELNEC livery, primarily because as there were more of this style of body than any other across the fleets absorbed into SELNEC, the final livery from a number of options was actually designed around drawings and hand made models of the body style (don’t forget this was before computer graphics) and the dimensions and spacings of the colours were then adopted fleet wide to the benefit of a few other body styles and the detriment of many. The orange was, however, distinctive and, to be controversial, not dull as it appeared to be in the shades and quantities chosen for Cardiff or Glasgow. The photo highlights a number of issues. It would have been rare for a Salford or Manchester vehicle to be out on service for long with damage as seen on the radiator housing. The blind was a lash up job and, as there doesn’t seem to be any snow around, it looks as if the bus hasn’t been through the washer for some days. These were some of the problems faced by the new entity for some time after set up as old loyalties were, as one inspector said to me, smashed and blown to the four winds and some depots had almost a rebellious attitude to the new organisation. In addition there was a range of problems when transferring vehicles from depot to depot such as blind sizes. unfamiliar position of bells on rear entrance double deckers, position of fuel fillers and different interior light bulbs and of course different gear boxes, to name a few. The appearance of many vehicles rapidly deteriorated. Those left in their original schemes with the appropriate divisional motifs added (the Central blue S flash on Manchester’s red or Salford’s green looking particularly odd) were generally left without attention to dints and paint deterioration until full repaint, some waiting two or three years for attention or for withdrawal. All this added to the debate about the orange, which was by no means confined to the enthusiast fraternity, gave the management plenty to cope wit. Much had settled by 1973, then there was another upheaval with the advent of Greater Manchester Transport.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/01/14 – 11:02
…..but as a Sheffielder who spent student and early working days in SELNEC/GMT land, Sunglow Orange and White were infinitely superior to SYPTE Coffee and Cream. Darkening the coffee didn’t improve it. Only adding the red – just before wiping it away with Mainline Yellow and Red – made it just about acceptable. If only they HAD kept Sheffield Cream and Blue – but the better Manchester/SELNEC alternative would have been Salford Green and Cream – kept up to the latter day standards of Salford. […..but then it would have been some sort of green and cream from Merseyside, through Manchester to West Yorkshire!]
David Oldfield
16/01/14 – 11:03
I fully agree with the SELNEC livery looking good on the Orion. The original orange, sunglow I think it was called, was a very intense yellowish shade which looked especially attractive when freshly applied. However, it was prone to fading so that when the fleet was rebranded it was replaced with a darker, redder version. The difference can be seen quite well on these ex SHMD Daimlers: www.flickr.com/photos/ The off-white originally used was also replaced by brilliant white at some stage. I personally preferred the former combination but as livery is often a controversial subject that is a matter of opinion. The PTE liveries are often maligned but some of them worked well and looked bright and refreshing on the right vehicles at the right time. I always liked the original WYPTE “Metro” livery with the stripe above the cab on the Roe bodied Atlanteans but on older vehicles it looked wrong. Merseyside used the same bluish Verona green which I thought looked very smart combined with jonquil yellow (a shade similar to the primrose used by East Yorkshire), especially on their Panthers. And, the final version of the Tyne and Wear livery with white rather than cream and royal blue lining has always been a personal favourite, especially on the Metropolitans. However, I would never deny that it was also something of a tragedy that magnificent liveries such as those at Halifax, Southport or South Shields were lost, and like the NBC liveries of the day, those of the PTEs were not helped by the loss of local pride that came with these huge, impersonal organisations.
Mike Morton
16/01/14 – 14:07
The question of appearance is highly subjective, but I remain an unapologetic loather of the Selnec ‘livery’ which looked particularly abhorrent when applied to front engined buses. The painting of the bonnet in orange, completely out of sympathy with the other lines of the scheme, made it look as absurdly conspicuous as a pantomime pirate’s eye patch. I have always disliked the Orion body, too. The straight taper from skirt panels to roofline, accentuated by the shallow upper saloon windows, gave the thing a gawky, ungainly, pin headed profile, which the cheap looking dome and glazing method merely compounded. Orange is a very tricky colour to adopt and maintain, as my time in Halifax revealed. HPTD buses emerging from the bodyshop with newly painted replacement lower panels resembled a patchwork quilt. Certainly, the Selnec scheme shows up body damage like a beacon. Salford would never have left the radiator cowl in that state, but even if it had, the missing slat would not have leapt so readily to the eye in that superb dark green livery. I will now don my hard hat in readiness for the onslaught from Selnec and Orion aficionados.
Roger Cox
17/01/14 – 08:25
I fully agree with Roger Cox regarding the SELNEC orange and white colour scheme it was one that was only ever going to look even reasonable when just out of the paint shop, considering the number of attractive colour schemes SELNEC inherited, MCTD’s being one of the least attractive, there were reasons to expect so much better. The Orion body was also an unattractive bus as it was unbalanced with the unequal depth windows and the inward taper from skirt to roof making it look very narrow and slab sided which looked even worse on a Regent V with a full front, the nasty tinny domes only made matters worse. Having said that if nobody had bought them how long would the design have lasted let alone been copied by Park Royal who managed to make a bad design even worse.
Diesel Dave
17/01/14 – 08:26
The livery certainly accentuates the Salford style of winding handles attached to a cumbersome-looking frame, designed to be reached without the need for the guard (sic)to climb on the radiator.
Geoff Kerr
17/01/14 – 09:19
The “tinny” domes were actually fibreglass with the outside smoothed and the inside almost always left rough so the passengers could view the fibres through the paint. They were prone to loads of condensation and vibration and used to crack to a greater or lesser extent. Manchester had many delivered with v shaped push window vents in the two front windows which helped the frontal appearance but they were removed and later orders had them omitted as, if the vents became stiff to move, the efforts of the passengers or guard to open or close them led to the whole window flexing and there were instances of major cracking and windows falling out as a result.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/01/14 – 17:53
Great to see a Middleton run featured and thanks Don for posting. Re the 3 and 59: the 3 (Oldham Corp) was Rushcroft to Mills Hill only. In 1968/9 every journey was extended to Middleton. All Sunday morning 59 runs were numbered 59x and ran only to Mills Hill until 11am, then through to Shaw. There were few passengers. Middleton had interesting routes and short workings, mostly forgotten now. Selnec livery? Yuk! Lots preferred the original liveries. These Daimlers were stunning when new teaming along the Crescent and better still if all the lights from Adelphi to Blackfriars were green.
Mike Franks
18/01/14 – 07:45
Mike, in my day as a teenager, the longer it took from Adelphi to Blackfriars the better, especially on a weekday afternoon in term time – go figure!
Phil Blinkhorn
18/01/14 – 07:46
To answer one of Philip’s questions, I’m pretty sure that all Salford CVG6s had spring-operated gearchanges. The spring operation went with vacuum brakes, whereas air operation went with air brakes. Salford stuck with vacuum brakes as long as possible, buying PD2/40s when their allegiance changed to Leyland. I would imagine their CCG6s were vacuum braked too, whereas Manchester’s were definitely air-braked. Talking of which (David), I didn’t know the Guy gearbox behaved differently in these than in its native Arab. I wonder if it was perhaps in the wrong place. Guy always put it amidships, so if Daimler put it at the front, it would need a different linkage. Whilst it is very nearly true that they were universally loathed, there was one driver who loved them – a certain Ron Barton, whose book “Manchester Buses from the Platform” has just been published. I haven’t read it, but I should be rather surprised if he doesn’t mention the CCG6s.
Peter Williamson
19/01/14 – 08:21
There was nothing wrong with the Guy gearbox. The constant mesh box was always disliked in fleets with a preponderance of preselective, semi auto or even synchromesh transmissions. The constant mesh gearbox required a degree of familiarity and skill for clean changes that drivers in mixed fleets did not (or could not be bothered to) acquire. The staff in neighbouring Tilling or BET fleets would have wondered what all the fuss was about.
Roger Cox
19/01/14 – 09:41
I like the way this is wandering into the realms of the merits or otherwise of different gearbox arrangements! In mid career, my duties with Southampton City Council began to involve what had been the Transport Department (by 1990 well into the deregulation era) and I encountered someone who was about to retire from that undertaking. He was telling me one day that he had started work with Provincial. All crash gearboxes. His instructor had mentioned – vaguely – double declutching, and had dismissed the idea as being for amateurs. “Listen to the engine, boy, and you can go straight through!” How would today’s drivers manage???
Pete Davies
19/06/17 – 07:14
As a former employee based at the Weaste Garage. The transfer of Salford vehicles to Manchester Queens Road due to the interest being shown by the ‘Ministry’ in the ‘presentation’ of Manchester vehicles. To placate the ‘Ministry’ overnight Salford vehicles in good order were transferred to Queens Road and conversely Queen Road relics arrived at Weaste and Frederick Rd. To say the least engineering at the former Salford undertaking were not the least happy with the transfer.
Robert Walsh
20/06/17 – 07:19
Could someone confirm that Salford Daimlers 111-146 had spring operated gearboxes and vacuum brakes?
David Call
21/06/17 – 07:19
Selnec livery. As a student in Manchester in the early 1970’s I was recruited by SELNEC to assist with an evening survey in Wythenshawe. Being a loyal employee, I equipped myself with a felt tip pen in Selnec’s house colour, orange, to complete my survey forms. I rapidly discovered that the neon street lighting in Wythenshawe made the form itself orange which meant that it was impossible to see whether anything had been written.
Peter Cook
21/06/17 – 07:20
My early comments (16.01.14) about gearbox set-up were purely hearsay on my part. Having subsequently driven a “crash” Guy, I would say that (once one has learned to drive it properly) it was one of the sweetest gear-changes I have come across.
It’s an August Sunday evening in 1967 at the Chapeltown terminus of the service from Rotherham. Huddersfield had batches of almost identical vehicles but these Rotherham ones were classy – they had hopper saloon windows! I never travelled on a Rotherham example but I hope they had more comfortable seats than the thin lightweight ones favoured by Huddersfield. As a bus, they were pretty indestructible in service although at 7 year recertification most had fractured rear body crossmembers. Enjoy the livery, swept away in the monolithic era of the PTE.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
19/02/15 – 15:57
Leeds City Transport also had a batch of five of these vehicles, two of which are preserved. I enjoyed a ride on one last autumn at the Skipton running day. The Leeds buses were bought specifically for a service which was operated jointly with Bradford Corporation, which used forward entrance vehicles. Leeds otherwise stuck to rear entrances until the advent of rear engined buses. I have never worked on forward entrance half cabs, but I wonder if there really was an advantage, or was it a case of following fashion? I have heard tales of conductors not liking them because there is nowhere to stand out of the way at bus stops. Certainly from the point of view of lower deck passengers, forward entrance buses had very poor forward vision. I’ve always liked Daimlers, and this one is enhanced by the “streamlined” livery. The service number blind looks odd, was there a large gap between the two digits?
Don McKeown
20/02/15 – 07:45
Don, Rotherham buses (certainly up to the mid 60s) always had the gap between the two numeral blinds. How could I have forgotten the similar Leeds Daimlers? Not only did I operate them at both Huddersfield and Halifax but 874 frequently operates the free Worth Valley Railway countryside tour service when the weather is unsuitable for the open top ex Southdown PD3.
Ian Wild
20/02/15 – 16:35
Derby also had separated digits to the route numbers – they even had completely separate apertures. Many Derby residents took this a bit literally. The no.11 to “Kedleston Road/Allestree Lane” often being referred to as a “one-one” rather than eleven.
Stephen Ford
22/02/15 – 07:53
Rotherham – Chapeltown was service 16, although I can’t make out what is actually being shown.
Geoff Kerr
22/02/15 – 07:53
Best I can do with what I have I’m afraid, I have sharpened it up a bit. Looks like route 2_6 to me.
Peter
22/02/15 – 14:02
My 1971 timetable and a photograph I took in 1970 at the same location both agree with Geoff, so unless the service had been renumbered the bus is showing the wrong number.
David Beilby
23/02/15 – 07:34
Leicester also had separate apertures for both numbers and a third for the destination.
Chris Hough
23/02/15 – 17:14
The 26 service was to Aston, on the other side of the town, so perhaps the driver has simply put the wrong digit up. The destination showing is ‘ROTHERHAM’, of course, which is what the corporation buses showed when working back towards town.
Lancaster City Transport 1952 Daimler CVG5 Northern Counties B35F
NTF 466 is a Daimler CVG5 with Northern Counties B35F body, built for Lancaster City Transport in 1952. There were three of them, but 467 and 468 were withdrawn in 1958. They had B32R bodies [with door!] when new and 466 was converted in the operator’s workshops to forward entrance layout in 1958. Now restored to her original livery, she carried Trafalgar Blue and White for a time after the ‘shotgun marriage’ of Lancaster and the adjacent Borough Of Morecambe & Heysham in 1974. [The other three Councils involved – Carnforth Urban District, Lancaster Rural District and Lunesdale Rural District – didn’t seem to object anywhere near so much, but Lancaster and Morecambe & Heysham had never ‘got on’.] She was retained for so long after her sisters for a very simple reason. Her 7ft 6in body was narrow enough to fit through the gateway of Lancaster Castle. Most of the place had been used as a prison for many years and this was the last vehicle in the fleet capable of taking the inmates to the prison’s farms. She is seen in the museum in St Helens on 15 August 2012, and the adjacent information board tells us she was known – for fairly obvious reasons – as ‘the prison bus’.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
10/05/15 – 16:28
A beauty, looking good. Would have loved the big old CAV headlamps (if indeed she once had them) but you can’t have everything! I can’t spot the date she actually retired- was it a record? Am I right to wonder if she also got one of those neck-cricking OMO “squint” windows to the cab when the door was moved?
Joe
10/05/15 – 16:49
I believe it was withdrawn in 1977 but kept as a keepsake until the end of LCT in 1993
Paul Turner
11/05/15 – 07:12
I quote from a former employee of LCT, Richard Allen, who supplied me with much information about the company which enabled me to provide a fleet list for this site: “NTF 466 was new as B36R just like NTF 467/8. It was rebuilt to B32F for OPO from 01/58 and in 06/1970 it was upseated to 35 in connection with the prison contract which it worked. It was considered too slow and laborious for OPO when underfloor engined buses were arriving, so 467/8 were never considered for conversion and were sold at the end of 1958”. It doesn’t answer your question, Joe, about windows, but if it did acquire something different it doesn’t sound like it was used for very long!
Dave Towers
11/05/15 – 07:12
Am I right in thinking that Trafalgar blue wasn’t the first choice of the “transport department” – didn’t they plump for a maroon colour with “City of Lancaster” fleetname to start with? I think the blue livery/Lancaster City Council fleetname was the result of a decision to adopt a “house-style” across the Council.
Philip Rushworth
12/05/15 – 06:57
Philip, In the early days of the merged operation, both sides kept their old colours with CITY OF LANCASTER in Tilling style as the fleetname. I have photographs of both backgrounds with that name. Certainly, the Trafalgar blue and white appeared to be the “house style” which came in fairly quickly.
Pete Davies
14/05/15 – 07:19
There was a good article in the February-March issue of ‘Classic Bus’ on the Lancaster-Morecambe & Heysham merger. It is written by Thomas Knowles who was GM of the combined undertaking from the outset and he outlines the problems he had with bringing the two former operations together. It contains plenty of good photographs.
Philip Halstead
This bus was repainted in Trafalgar blue in 1977 as part of the Queen’s Silver Jubilee celebrations and ran a service along Morecambe seafront over that summer its prison bus replacement was a Tiger Cub with single door East Lancs bodywork. A friend who was a management trainee with Lancaster once told me that this bus also survived so long because the prisoners could not overpower the driver in his separate cab!
Chris Hough
12/12/16 – 06:38
As a belated update on this vehicle it was also fitted with a rear facing seat at the front so the guards could watch the prisoners. It has problems with its brakes which is why it is not in current use, however there are plans for it to be repaired and returned to the road for 2017. It is a fine looking vehicle and should be very popular on the free bus running days at the Northwest Transport museum in St Helens.
John P
13/12/16 – 07:15
Do I interpret, from your info, Pete, that the two Rural District Councils ran buses? If so, they’re the first I’ve come across.
Chris Hebbron
13/12/16 – 09:38
No, Chris. Only Lancaster City and Morecambe & Heysham Borough ran buses (trams previously). The two RDCs relied on Ribble and while Carnforth UD had no bus operations, it was the northern terminus of M&H service 73 which was operated jointly with Ribble. This was in addition to Ribble services passing through. I meant in my original copy that the two Councils never ‘got on’. The remarks by each about the other were little short of hatred, very much like the supporters of one football club say about the supporters of their neighbours. Portsmouth and Southampton, Aston Villa and Birmingham City, or Manchester City and Manchester United, for example!
Pete Davies
13/12/16 – 14:16
Sorry, Chris H, I must insist, the replacement for 466 on the prison work was not a Tiger Cub but one of the dual-doorway Leopards, the batch being 101-103 (101-103 UTF). I don’t recall ever seeing a Tiger Cub on prison duties. What I can’t now remember, for sure, is whether one of the Leopards was used consistently, or whether all were used in turn, but if I had to guess, I would say it was the former.
David Call
15/12/16 – 13:55
Pete D, I think you must have rushed that last comment, since I’m sure that if you’d thought about it you would have realised that what you were saying wasn’t quite correct. Service 73 was essentially Ribble service 73, since, throughout the period of service 73’s existence, M & H did not themselves use route numbers. As to whether it being Ribble service 73 also made it M & H service 73, irrespective of M & H not making a point of using route numbers, let alone displaying them on vehicles, I wouldn’t like to say. We’d probably need a contemporary M & H timetable to determine that one. Sometime in the mid-1960s, as part of a Ribble policy of renumbering its Northern area services as 5xx or 6xx, service 73 became service 573. Not long afterwards (I’m not sure exactly how long, though) M & H received its first AEC Swifts, 1-6 (CTJ 101-6E). These were intended to be used OPO from the word go, and one of the routes they went on was Morecambe-Carnforth, upon which they displayed the number 573. Unfortunately, because the rest of the M & H routes were at this time still unnumbered, there was no great incentive for drivers to wind off the 573 display, so M & H’s other OPO routes seemed to become ‘573’! In due course (I think it was around 1970) M & H did introduce its own route numbering system. Interestingly, when the M & H journeys on Morecambe-Carnforth went OPO, the Ribble-operated ones remained crew-operated, and this situation remained for about twelve months. In a company/municipal situation, you would have thought it would be the company which would be the first in with OPO.
David Call
16/12/16 – 06:24
Yes, Mr Call, you are of course correct. Apologies to the readership for any confusion. I’ll go back to sleep!
Huddersfield Corporation 1966 Daimler CVG6LX.30DD East Lancs H41/29F
This is the last Huddersfield Corporation vehicle delivered (numerically) with a front engine and is currently preserved. It was new in 1966 to the Corporation, being withdrawn in 1980, having served 6 years with the WYPTE. The photo was taken in 2005 at a local bus rally and shows the vehicle turned out in superb condition and displaying the old Corporation livery with the front end swoops. It is still active and I photographed it at another local rally earlier this year.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tim Jackson
27/06/15 – 06:40
I rode on this bus this year at Llandudno, and was surprised to be given an ultimate ticket. Perhaps the owners have a big supply of ticket rolls. A lovely bus, Daimlers don’t get the attention they deserve. Pity about the forward entrance!
Don McKeown
28/06/15 – 05:52
Well Don, Huddersfield used Ultimate ticket machines so that added to the authenticity of riding on it. Despite having served over six years with WYPTE it somehow managed to retain its Huddersfield livery to the end.
Eric Bawden
02/07/15 – 05:45
What’s that white(ish) circle on the offside tyre? It looks like a light to me, but can’t be original . . . and surely can’t be legal now. I’m assuming that these had Daimatic transmission. Did that completely supersede pre-select, or was pre-select available until the end of production? if it was, then I’m assuming it would have been air-actuated . . . surely that “lethal” spring(?) system had been confined to the bin by then.
Philip Rushworth
02/07/15 – 08:34
It is a light and there should be a corresponding one on the other side. If you look for photos of the bus on Flickr you can find a selection with two, one or zero lights. I believe it is currently displaying the correct two lights.
David Beilby
03/07/15 – 06:38
Philip, Northampton’s last Daimler CVG6s delivered in 1968 had pre-selector gearboxes. For some reason it seems to run in my mind that they may have been of the thigh and knee bruising spring-operated type, as I seem to recall Northampton also specified vacuum brakes on the vehicles. Air-operated systems require the use of an air compressor, whereas vacuum brakes require the use of an exhauster, which would not be compatible with an air-operated gearbox. Ideally we need a Northampton expert to confirm this. The Huddersfield Daimler CVG6LXs were handsome vehicles, whether bodied by Roe, or East Lancashire. I have fond memories of riding on one or two of the latter between Huddersfield and Halifax, and being impressed by their turn of speed. They sounded wonderful and were also comfortable buses to ride on. That ‘Corporation’ livery was special as well, with the extra cream and streamlining at the front, and it’s distinctiveness is sadly missed.
Brendan Smith
03/07/15 – 06:39
Philip, these did indeed have Daimatic semi-auto transmission, but as far as I know the pre-select spring operated transmission was still available. I think all the Northampton CVG’s had them right up to the last “G” reg.examples, though I doubt any other operator would have bought any for years.
Eric Bawden
05/07/15 – 07:30
I believe that Northampton specified vacuum brakes right up to their last deliveries hence with no air pressure system on the buses the pre selector spring operated transmission was the only option. Generally Operators who specified air brakes took the 2 pedal Daimatic transmission.
Ian Wild
08/07/15 – 05:42
Thanks for the various replies. Did any operator purchase air-actuated pre-selector buses in preference to the Daimatic transmission? Am I correct in assuming that the Daimatic transmission was just a CAV-actuated SCG box built/purchased(?) under license?
Aberdeen Corporation 1965 Daimler CVG6 Alexander H37/29R
CRG 325C is a Daimler CVG6 with Alexander H66R bodywork. She entered service with Aberdeen in March 1965. This was one of only three or four Councils in Scotland still with its own Transport Department at Local Government Reorganisation in 1975 [a year later than in England] the undertaking was renamed Grampian Regional Transport, a precursor of First. We see her at Duxford on 18 September 2005.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
05/10/15 – 06:21
“Trafficators” on the mirrors? -about 40 years ahead of its time. What’s the metal “pad” on the mudguard for? Not seen that before- and the grilles under the canopy are presumably heating…. and a ventilator in that window, too. All together though, a very handsome bus: the tin front- perhaps plastic front- Daimler CV’s were the best looking half cabs of all (discuss).
Joe
05/10/15 – 06:22
Makes you wonder how they managed to fit 66 seats into a 27′ long decker. The Sheffield standard for buses of this length was 59 and I don’t recall the seat spacing being all that generous.
Ian Wild
05/10/15 – 09:51
I did wonder if, perhaps, the vehicle should be listed as a 30 footer, but a number of other places managed to fit sixty-odd seats in that length, cramped as it might have been. Did she start as a 58 or 59 seater and get the capacity increased for normal duties, was she for school services only in later years, or is there some other reason? Are there any readers out here who can tell us for sure?””
Pete Davies
06/10/15 – 06:31
Samuel Ledgard had several 27 footers with similar large capacities and, as far as I recall from conducting/travelling, no problem with legroom The vehicles were :- 1949 – 1954 Regent V/Roe H37/28R XUG 141 Daimler CVG6/Burlingham H36/28R SDU 711 Daimler CVG6/Willowbrook LoLite H37/29RD. The quite appreciable difference in the fairly narrow “window” of 26/27 feet is fascinating and quite remarkable.
Chris Youhill
06/10/15 – 06:32
Simple explanation for the “trafficators” on the mirrors. They are not trafficators but luminous yellow blobs as fitted to the back of the mirrors, a forerunner of the reflective yellow mirrors fitted to First vehicles. I believe that some other operators put aluminium plates on the near side wings, from memory Sheffield Regent V’s had them fitted but they did not cover the same area as those fitted to 325,and to all other Aberdeen tin front buses. Dundee buses also had fitting similar to those fitted in Aberdeen. I presume it enabled staff to stand on the wings without scratching or breaking them. 325 was always a 66 seat bus and is only 27 ft. long. Aberdeen fitted five rearward facing seats along the front bulkhead
Further note, the luminous blobs have now been removed. At the time the picture was taken it was still owned by First, hence the luminous blobs. It is now owned by the Aberdeen and District Bus Preservation Group and is kept at the premises in Alford, Aberdeenshire.
Stephen Bloomfield
06/10/15 – 06:34
Halifax Corporation’s last five CVG6/Roe’s of 1956 had 65 seats (H37/28R) and were 27 footers. The lower deck comprised five pairs of double seats facing forwards and two sideways facing seats for four (a bit optimistic)over the rear wheelarches. The upper deck had eight pairs of forward facing seats, a double seat on the nearside opposite the top of the stairs (which were of course of the Roe straight variety) and a three seater seat at the rear, set back slightly behind the top of the stairs. The Aberdeen example shown could have managed 66 seats using the same arrangement but with the first row of downstairs seats replaced by a five seater rearward facing seat against the front bulkhead.
John Stringer
06/10/15 – 06:34
The odd number of seats downstairs suggests that they had a reversed 5-some across the front bulkhead. Combined with inadequate leg room to the first forward facing seats (interlocking knees!) would give a “good” seating capacity there. We should not forget that even among the Scots, Aberdonians have a reputation to maintain! (An Aberdeen breakfast is said to comprise a slice of toast – no marmalade!)
Stephen Ford
06/10/15 – 06:35
65 seats on a 27-ft rear entrance double decker was fairly common. The extra seat to give 29 downstairs was usually achieved by having a rear facing five seat bench across the front bulkhead, Lodekka style. I am not personally familiar with these buses but would assume that was the layout.
Philip Halstead
06/10/15 – 07:06
The London Routemaster had 64 satisfactorily spaced seats within an overall length of 27 ft 8 ins, so I suppose the quoted figure of 66 in the Aberdeen Daimler’s Alexander body was possible, even if not entirely comfortable. On the subject of tin/plastic fronts, I thought most of them were pretty dire, and the AEC variety, often quoted by many enthusiasts as their favourite, was garish in the extreme to my eye. It was just an over inflated caricature of the contemporary Rover car front end. My own preference from the mediocre line up was the Johannesburg front on the Guy Arab, but this wasn’t offered for very long before the old Birmingham style became standard again.
Roger Cox
06/10/15 – 07:06
I would hazard a guess that the metal plate on the nearside mudguard was a canny Scottish idea to reduce damage to the paintwork by Fitters in dirty overalls whilst working on the engine (or night staff leaning over to check/top up the engine oil level). Seems a logical idea, did any other Operators fit these plates?
Ian Wild
06/10/15 – 07:07
With bodies by Park Royal and Willowbrook on a Guy Arab IV or Leyland PD2/12 chassis, the 1956/7 intake of D/D’s for the NGT group were all 63 seats, but 66 would seem a bit cosy, or should that be cramped?
Ronnie Hoye
06/10/15 – 07:07
Manchester Corporation and others had 65 seat 27 foot double-deckers. If the downstairs front seats had been turned to face backwards as a five seat bench (as on Bristol Lodekkas) they would have seated 66.
Don McKeown
06/10/15 – 09:39
Interesting information on the variations in these apparently high capacities. Of the eight Ledgard vehicles I mentioned only the Willowbrook “LoLite” body had the rearward facing seat for five behind the driver.
Chris Youhill
07/10/15 – 06:20
Chris-do tell us more about “LoLite” bodies? I tried it in Google and got a page of searches based on Lolita. At first glance, the word looks like one for a vandal-proofed body suitable for the more difficult-to-conduct routes.
Joe
07/10/15 – 06:22
Reading about these “large” capacity buses has me wondering about the “moderns”(sorry about that) that I am seeing around Lancashire. A company called Tyrer has a 3axle DD marked on the back as a 102 seater and their company website has a picture of a similarly 3axle 100 seat executive coach. Does anybody know what they might be.
John Lomas
07/10/15 – 15:54
Joe – the one that Ledgard had (SDU 711, later West Yorkshire after takeover, was the former Daimler demonstrator. The low height was, as far as I remember, achieved very successfully by attaching the body direct to the top of the chassis members. It was a very good looking bus, looking “comfortable” with itself, and was extremely strongly built with substantial upper saloon corner pillars.
John – the giant 100 seats plus buses that you mention sound very like some re-imported from China, possibly Dennis Dominators or Ailsa Volvos – open to correction there.
Chris Youhill
08/10/15 – 07:22
One of the views on the firm’s website shows the cab area, with something like the Volvo logo on the steering wheel.
Pete Davies
08/10/15 – 07:23
The 100+ three-axle vehicles are probably from Hong Kong where this type has been common for several years. The high seating capacity is mainly achieved by the use of three and two seating across the bus. With the population of Hong Kong being generally smaller in build than us Europeans this works over there. Think it would be a bit cramped with British bus loads though.
Philip Halstead
09/10/15 – 17:17
With a little help from Pete, these are apparently new Volvo B9TL tri-axle deckers, bodied by East Lancs. Quite a good-looking bus, but I much prefer the look of the Southdown East Lancs bodied Royal Tigers and PD2/12’s found in the 50’s and 60’s when I was a wee lad growing up in Brighton.
Anon
28/10/15 – 13:27
Growing up in Aberdeen in the 60’s I can confirm that Grampian 325 had three seats at the rear of the top deck and a rear facing 5 seat bench behind the lower deck bulkhead. Also 325 was the last open platform bus delivered in Scotland.
Danny Stephen
29/10/15 – 06:25
I notice that CRG 325C has the wider form of the so-called “Manchester front”. We’ve been discussing this subject over on the sct61 site. The conclusion so far is that the standard CVG6 had a chassis frame that tapered towards the front and used a 7’6″ front axle. When a change had to be made to the chassis frame design for any reason, a straight frame was used with an 8′ axle and the wider cowl. Examples explained this way are for 30-foot chassis, manual gearboxes and forward entrances, and also for the final batch for Northampton which was simply using up parts. That seems to make these Aberdeen examples the last unexplained anomaly, unless anyone has any ideas.
This former Northampton 267, JVV 267G, is seen here on a running day at Wellingborough on 22/4/17. This was the last CVG6 for the UK market, the last bus with pre-selector transmission, the last teak framed Roe body and, I believe, the last open rear platform bus delivered in the UK.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
01/05/17 – 07:12
What a gem!
Joe
02/05/17 – 07:19
Last time I saw 267 it was looking a bit down at heel but in this shot it looks superb. Well done to the owner(s). I was led to believe that Northampton took the first post-war CVG6 to be built and as the caption states took the last one some twenty years later. All purchases in between were of the same mark and I understand all had Roe bodies. A great tribute to the products of these two companies and to standardisation. Also the shade of red is just awesome!
Philip Halstead
09/05/17 – 07:42
Sadly the modern digital photography has played havoc with the colouring! Although 267 is indeed very smartly turned out nowadays it is nowhere near as garish as this picture suggests. The Northampton red was actually Vermilion, which is an orangy red quite unique to Northanpton as far as I know. Several preserved Ex Northampton buses sport an assortment of shades but not all successfully capture it in my opinion.
Andrew Goodwin
09/05/17 – 17:39
A less gaudy photo of one of the same batch! The Drapery, Northampton.
Tony Martin
23/07/17 – 07:03
Just a small correction – the three buses in Tony Martin’s photo (09/05/17) are in fact in Mercers Row. NCT bought almost exclusively Daimler buses, there was also a small batch of Crossleys, one of which has been preserved. www.flickr.com/photos/
Norman
26/07/17 – 15:50
All the ‘lasts’ are correct except the last for which the credit goes to Stockport Corporation PD3 fleet number 91 registered on 1 January 1969.
Leeds City Transport 1957 Daimler CVG6 Weymann H33/27R
Photographed in April 1970 in the dignified livery of Leeds City Transport is Daimler CVG6, Weymann H33/27R, YNW 555, No. 555, one of a batch of twenty delivered in September 1957. This bus remained in service to pass to WYPTE on 1 April 1974.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
10/10/18 – 05:21
Like many municipalities, Leeds Corporation got full value out of its vehicles, in this case, at least 17 years. Of course, with the impending threat of having to hand over its vehicles to the WYPTE, it might well have just decided not to replace the older ones at that stage! Do we know when it was finally withdrawn? One of my two trips to Leeds was to travel its tram system, with its Felthams, in 1957/58, I think. I was shocked at its closure soon afterwards, which seemed illogical with so much of it on reserved track and no employee mentioned impending doom on my visit. Does anyone know what changed to shut it down in such a short timescale?
Chris Hebbron
11/10/18 – 05:32
Volume 4 of “Leeds Transport” actually reports that 555 was withdrawn on 30/09/1971 and went to a Barnsley dealer for scrapping November 1972.
Dave Towers
12/10/18 – 06:50
Thanks for that correction, Dave, which I entirely accept. Not possessing a historic Leeds fleetlist, I did find a site that listed this batch of Daimlers as passing to the PTE, but now cannot find it. I understand that these Daimlers had air operated brakes and gearchange, which mercifully shielded unwary drivers from the decidedly painful (I speak from experience with the Halifax examples) affliction known as “Daimler knee”.
Roger Cox
23/10/18 – 05:48
The Leeds Tramway was earmarked for closure from the very early fifties. This was despite a good deal of pro tram sentiments among the public. These and a similar batch bought a year earlier were Leeds fist buses with tin front.
Chris Hough
06/06/21 – 06:39
Yes as Chris said the Leeds system was earmarked for closure in the 1960’s but events brought the sad end earlier than expected on the 7th November 1959. Its quite amazing the number of photographs, both black and white and colour, of the system that are still around. It must be said that a great debit is owed to the National Tramway Museum and the LTHS and collectors such as Robert Mack, Keith Terry and Jim Soper and no doubt countless others.
David Walton
01/09/22 – 07:19
Recently I have been looking at the Leeds and District Transport News back issues for the 1950’s and Daimler CVG6 and CVD6 are both referred to at different times as having the name Victory. I think this could be a mistake, the CVD6 could be rightly given this term, but not the CVG6. What does your readership know about this.
David Patrick Walton
04/09/22 – 06:52
Why not the CVG6…please explain, David? Surely the chassis was what mattered, not the engine. Incidentally, there were CVA6’s, too, although not in Leeds.
Chris Hebbron
05/09/22 – 07:04
Does David not understand the Daimler naming system? COG Coventry Oil engine Gardner. Pre-war. AEC engines also available. CWG Coventry Wartime Gardner. Wartime. AEC engines available. CVG Coventry Victory Gardner. Post-war. AEC/Daimler available
David Oldfield
06/09/22 – 05:26
I would suggest that the “naming” suggested by David Oldfield referred to the model coding system rather than the naming of the chassis as such. The Daimler CWA6, CWD6 and CWG5 models were all known as “Wartime Daimlers”. Thus the Daimler CVD6, CVG5, CVG6 and CVA6 became known as “Victory Daimlers” in the early post-war years to reflect the new Daimler chassis introduced after the war, irrespective of the engine fitted, but I have not heard the name Victory being applied to anything new after about 1948/9.
Manchester Corporation 1953 Daimler CVG6 Metro Cammell H32/28R
During the 1950s, Manchester Corporation mainly sourced its double deck fleet from Leyland, the shorter PD2 chassis being preferred, and from Daimler, mostly the CVG6 version, but some CVG5s were also taken. The picture, taken in June 1970 after the formation of the SELNEC PTE in November 1969, shows Daimler CVG6 No. 4412, NNB 222 with Metro Cammell H32/28R body carrying Manchester’s version of the tin front. Some sources refer to these buses as CVG6K, in recognition of the fitment of the upgraded Gardner LW “K” type engine that emerged from 1950, but I am not sure that this was an official Daimler designation.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
31/05/21 – 09:07
Did the addition of a ‘K’ suffix to the designation of a Daimler CV series not indicate use of a Kirkstall rear axle?
David Call
02/06/21 – 08:38
Yes, David, you are absolutely correct. An absurd error on my part. Daimler began using Kirkstall rear axles on resumption of production in 1942. Daimler axles reappeared as an option at the end of the war, when the suffix became ‘D’.
Roger Cox
04/06/21 – 06:11
The bodywork on this bus is perhaps the most un-Metro Cammell looking product I’ve ever seen. Was this particular design unique to Manchester Corporation?
Chris Barker
04/06/21 – 06:11
I began my student days in Manchester in September 1971 and these were my regular steeds down the A34 Wilmslow Road and Palatine Road to my “Manchester home” in the Withington/West Didsbury area. They were a little tired and slow but, as South Manchester is basically on the flat Cheshire plain, they were still remarkably up to the job. Twenty years – not at all a bad innings.
David Oldfield
05/06/21 – 05:31
Chris is correct in suggesting that this body design was unique to Manchester – in fact it was unique to this batch of 80 buses, all later Met-Cams being Orions. Just to clarify Roger’s description, these were all delivered with standard Birmingham-style tin fronts. The home-grown style shown was only fitted to some vehicles as a replacement when the original was damaged.
Peter Williamson
06/06/21 – 06:28
They were a Manchester special – with flush windows for machine washing – but I believe that they are a development of the Phoenix style which preceded them. Rather like the spray painted “all red” livery which ruined Manchester’s discreetly distinguished earlier livery, this was a watered down version the classic Phoenix. Sadly, standards slipped until the “Mancunian” era.
David Oldfield
07/06/21 – 06:23
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Evidently so is ‘tired and slow’-ness. Like David Oldfield I came to Manchester University (in 1970 rather than 1971) my previous experience of bus travel having been L5G (to 1965) and MW5G types on some very winding city streets where 20 mph was the usual maximum. I thought these Daimlers had very good acceleration helped I think I’m right in saying from memory by a preselect gearbox and also good top speed.
Peter Cook
08/06/21 – 05:57
In his comment about the Dennis Loline I back in 2013, Ian Thompson said that the genuine 112 bhp of the Gardner 6LW was worth 125 bhp of anyone else’s. Remember that this figure was generated at 1700 rpm, at which speed the bigger AEC and Leyland units would have putting out around 118 bhp, not a lot more. Indeed, if Gardner had increased the revs of the 6LW to 1850 as it did with the 6LXB, the output would have been around 120 bhp. The Gardner had a very flat torque curve right across the rev range, and the correct way to drive one was to change up early and let the torque accelerate the bus, rather than scream the engine up to maximum revs. In addition to later vehicles, I’ve driven Leyland PD2 and 3, AEC Regent III and V, and Daimler CVG6 (plus the Halifax CVL6) and in my book the Gardner handsomely beats Preston and (sorry David) Southall.
Roger Cox
10/06/21 – 07:07
As we’re on a Manchester thread, it should be mentioned that Manchester’s PD2s and CVG6s were both de-rated to 100bhp at 1650rpm. By common consent the Leylands were livelier, and for that reason worked on the northern side of the city where the hills were.
Peter Williamson
17/06/21 – 06:48
I’m not sure whether Northenden or Parrs Wood was the most southerly depot, but Parrs Wood was predominantly if not totally Leyland. The Burlingham bodied PD2s were lively performers particularly the final few ‘non-standards. From the mid-fifties the 92 Manchester-Hazel Grove was generally a Daimler either as above or newer. Stockport shared this service using 1949 or 1951 all Leyland PD2/1s. There was no comparison in performance, the Leylands were fast and lively, the Daimlers were very sluggish which shows the effect of down rating. Our local route was usually a 1949 PD2. Crossleys could not keep time, the only other vehicles that could keep time were the prewar TD4s.
Andrew Gosling
17/06/21 – 15:25
Yes, I had forgotten about Parrs Wood. Manchester had two northern depots, one eastern and four southern, so keeping all the Leylands in the north and east would not have been possible. But the point is that the CVGs did not work in the north, with the notable exception of the Phoenixes on cross-city services, until about 1966. After that it seemed anything could be cascaded anywhere.
